We actually have licensed 7 windows servers with active SA and a lot of other licenses of MS products. This weekend I stuck with an update problem of .NET 4 on one of our servers. You can find a lot of information for this error in multiple forums, but with very different solutions for nearly any of the OS microsoft has. (Just for information: Error 1603 from msiexec when updating .NET, or trying to unsinstall, reinstall or repair .NET)

After spending hours of weekend time trying a lot of the possible "solutions", today I decided to get support from Microsoft the first time I'm in IT, and this already are more than 2 decades.

Result was as expected: I struggled through a lot of numbers like Licence IDs, Technet prof Abonnement ID, and so on. In the end a nice guy from volume license support gave me an anwser, which didn't satify me, though expected:

Direct support is not available for customers with server contracts less than 220.000 EUR, approx. 295.000 USD! (I'm still in process to get some - as Microsoft says - complementary support using our technet pro subscription).

That leads me to a lot of questions:

Why they are able to not offer simple and basic support for their products? Is it because we (IT pros) do not claim for it?

Why is a big customer able to get this support, even though it pays less on a per license basis (I'm sure big companies get a lot of discount on volume licenses)?

Is it our (IT pros) fault, because we prefer to use forums (excellent like this, more worse like MSDN and so on) instead of claiming for support.

Is this the sign to start the change to open source solutions?

What's your option to this topic?

Has anybody banned Microsoft totally from the network in a SMB environment?

Why they are able to not offer simple and basic support for their products? Is it because we (IT pros) do not claim for it?

Microsoft, like many vendors, makes their primary money through their ecosystem. If they were to provide support to smaller shops they would be biting the hand that feeds them - that is, their partners. If you work through a partner for support rather than going directly to Microsoft you should get better results. That is Microsoft's system and it is what allows them to be so large.

We are an SMB and get 2 MS Support Incidents per year via our Technet Subscription The developers also get 2 incidents as well via MSDN. Having only every used this once would say this meeting are needs and is probably the most cost effective way to get MS Support. Also I know they charge £200 per incident.

Thinking about it most software vendors charge you for support in some way.... very few offer it free.

Why is a big customer able to get this support, even though it pays less on a per license basis (I'm sure big companies get a lot of discount on volume licenses)?

Because they are a big customer. That should be self explanatory. They might pay less per license but they buy more licenses and more things. An SMB might buy seven server licenses but an enterprise might be tens of thousands of them, plus thousands of SQL Licenses, and Exchange licenses and Lync licenses, etc. That they can get support for their huge contracts that are individually negotiated is a no brainer - these companies represent massive revenues through many different Microsoft channels and MS not providing support for Windows Server might mean that the customer abandons SQL Server for Sybase and they don't want to lose that.

SMBs universally don't have the clout in the IT department to convince the businesses to not use Microsoft. There is no upside to Microsoft offering support but a lot of downside in the SMB. In the enterprise, they have no choice. A misstep with a Fortune 100 customer could mean the loss of millions of dollars.

Is it our (IT pros) fault, because we prefer to use forums (excellent like this, more worse like MSDN and so on) instead of claiming for support.

I don't think that there is anything wrong with Microsoft's approach. They have a healthy system for getting support to customers and it is one of the better ones in the business. It blows Apple's approach out of the water.

As Microsoft has operated with the same model for decades and open source has remained the same for decades I don't think that there is any "sign" here. You are simply experiencing the status quo.

Is this a good reason why open source is awesome? Sure. Open source has always been far superior for support. If people cares about good support they would have moved to open source solutions long ago. Bottom line is, customers (the business people making the decisions) do not care as much as quality of support and broadness of support options as they do about uniformity, using what their friends use, using what they are familiar with, using what they hear about on TV and see on boards at the airport.... until you convince SMB business owners to really evaluate the value to the business over risk the pain of doing something different, Microsoft has no incentive to change how they operate. Microsoft doesn't have to deliver a perfect product, just one that the business decision makers like better.

Why they are able to not offer simple and basic support for their products? Is it because we (IT pros) do not claim for it?

Microsoft, like many vendors, makes their primary money through their ecosystem. If they were to provide support to smaller shops they would be biting the hand that feeds them - that is, their partners. If you work through a partner for support rather than going directly to Microsoft you should get better results. That is Microsoft's system and it is what allows them to be so large.

I appreciate your opinion as I do in most of your posts. But it's exactly this ecosystem I'm trying to raise in question. For small companies it is not this easy to find a partner which has more experience than itself and is affordable too. I'm sure this ecosystem is working well for MS and bigger companies with appropriate budget. But others are stuck in struggling for solutions on their own.

By the way: MS volume license hotline told me last week that I'm authorized to get support directly if having server licenses worth EUR 200.000. That's it, when I'm paying less per license (I' m sure you get a lot of discount when bying more licenses), Im eligible for support too. That's annoying.

Is it our (IT pros) fault, because we prefer to use forums (excellent like this, more worse like MSDN and so on) instead of claiming for support.

I don't think that there is anything wrong with Microsoft's approach. They have a healthy system for getting support to customers and it is one of the better ones in the business. It blows Apple's approach out of the water.

OK, Apply is a real bad example for support. A much more better example is Veeam. There I can get software assurance (in MS speak) and get support as well for a reasonable price.

We are an SMB and get 2 MS Support Incidents per year via our Technet Subscription The developers also get 2 incidents as well via MSDN. Having only every used this once would say this meeting are needs and is probably the most cost effective way to get MS Support. Also I know they charge £200 per incident.

Thinking about it most software vendors charge you for support in some way.... very few offer it free.

Thanks for your advice. I've tried to get access to this "complementary" incindents. After activiating benefits in volume license center and requesting "Support Service Activation", Microsoft refused my request.

So I'm going to proceed like I've done last 20 years, I solve problems on my own ... as SAM told me above: I seems that my expactations do not fit into Microsoft ecosystem.